Re:Why does the ac tree persist? (Score 3, Interesting)

The article seems to come out in favour of the new VM code. It makes it sound like it works much more effectively. So, why does Alan Cox continue with the old VM code? There must be some reason why he thinks it's better, or why go through the effort of continually patching the old code into the newer kernel?

Basicly because nether of them are good in all conditions. Each of them is better than the
other in some situations. eg, big systems, little systems or whatever. While i am on the kernel mailing list i haven't been following the discussions closely enough to say any more than that, but it's the gist of it. Also for a while Alan continuing to run the Rik VM gave people a way to run a later version kernel without being lab rats for the new VM, which really hadn't had much testing in 2.4.10/11.

I think that this article overrates the AA VM by a large margin. It cant really be said to have solved the linux VM woes, which is what it implies.

I have now used both of the .13 kernels and personally found the -ac vm to be better for my needs. On the other hand, since i brought 768MB of RAM today, my needs have just changed.